While the Ford Falcon is getting the bulk of the attention with respect to Ford’s soon-to-be-shuttered Australian operations, Ford also made another product, based off the Falcon platform, that never made it to our shores. The Ford Territory might be the most desirable CUV ever made.

Around these parts, the above statement doesn’t carry much weight, but beneath the Freestyle-esque exterior lurked a radically different drivetrain. Using the rear-drive Falcon’s running gear, the Territory’s base powertrains consisted of a 4.0L I6 and either rear or all-wheel drive. Later variants added a diesel V6 as an option. Unlike the Falcon or its Ute derivatives, there was no V8 available. A 329 horsepower turbocharged I6 was available on the second generation Territory, but buyers looking for even more power had a brief opportunity for even more power.

The FPV F6X (pictured above) borrowed the Falcon FPV6’s 362 horsepower turbocharged I6 but retained the Territory’s AWD system. 60 mph came up in about 6 seconds, but the FPV F6X had a big problem; a Falcon XR6T with a more powerful I6 engine was about 30 percent cheaper, and the F6X was barely distinguishable from the regular Territory Turbo. Sales were predictably slow and the F6X lasted one year only.

I can’t help but feel saddened knowing that the Territory is marked for death along with the Falcon. The business case may no longer be there, but the Territory represents an increasingly rare-breed in the automotive world; a vehicle that was derived as a unique solution to local tastes and attitudes. The fact that it could give many sports cars a real fight in a drag race, while looking like an ordinary family hauler makes it even more bittersweet.

44 Comments on “TTAC Salutes The Ford Territory...”

So this would be akin to Chrysler building a CUV based on the 300 platform. Would be cool and makes me wonder about the usefulness of a Panther based CUV which would be closer to a real SUV since it would have been BOF but still car based.

Actually, the (current) Durango and Grand Cherokee are underpinned by a modified Mercedes M-class platform, which is related to the GL and R-Class…but probably isn’t related to the previous-generation E-Class platform that the Chrysler Group LC, LD and LX models use. By virtue of the Durango being RWD-biased, however, you’re right.

This would have been nice to sell in the US. Sounds like a neat vehicle and the rear drive and Straight Six engine would have been popular. Too bad Ford USA couldn’t of used the Falcon platform for a new Mustang and also for a new US Falcon with rear wheel drive. Chrysler has been successful with its Charger and 300 and a US based Falcon platform could be used in a number of ways. Too bad to see this go. This is an example of a “One Ford” platform that can be used and adapted across the world for many different cars and SUVs. We are losing a lot of uniqueness in cars with one platform being used across the world. Cars need to be adaptable to local needs and some world cars will flop like the Ford Contour of the late 1990s.

The Contour may have a been a flop in the US, but it was a massive success here in Europe under the Mondeo nameplate. Twenty years ago, our idea of “midsize” was a half a size smaller than yours. Now that difference has disappeared and cars like the Ford Fusion (Mondeo) and Buick Regal (Opel Insignia) sell well on both sides of the pond.

Actually the Contour/Mystique sold very well in NA and was a huge improvement, not that its saying much, over the previous Tempo/Topaz. The ’98-’00 SVT version with the 195 HP HO 2.5L Mazda-mill, 5 spd manual, blurple leather seats and true dual exhaust was a very, very good car. Unfortunately for the mark, Ford was more ambitious in building its truck line in the late ’90s to uber proportions than pushing a compact passenger car.

I don’t imagine you ever tried to earn a living repairing a Common/Mistake as a dealer tech at the warranty (or recall) times Ford was so not generous with. Flat rate techs would rather do nothing than have one of those turds in their bays. They had recalls from the moment they left the plant in 1994. Fuel tanks, seat belts, headlamp switches and wiring, blower motor resistors and wiring, instrument panel warping, front crash sensors, water pumps, engine compartment wiring harnesses, and on and on. You could literally get a repair ticket for an oil change and 5 recalls. I wanted to like the cars, they rode and handled well, especially the 5 speed SVTs. But real life experience made me feel otherwise.

The Falcon was not built on an architecture that could support both LHD and RHD (as opposed to the GM Zeta or Chrysler LX/LD) nor (AFAIK) is the Mustang’s architecture adaptable to RHD. Would make more sense to have one global RWD platform which can cover both applications.

as for the Contour, it was a flop because it was almost as expensive as the Taurus but a much more cramped interior.

That was the plan before Mullaly took the reins of Ford. The Falcon was to get redesigned to be Fords RWD platform, a shorter version would have underpinned the Mustang while stretched versions were to replace the Panthers. Years ago there was an article in C&D or R&T all about the plans.

Except for that minor detail that the FWD Escorts looked about the same on both sides of the pond, but were actually completely different cars. They hardly shared ANYTHING, and as usual, the Euro version was MUCH better than ours.

Different Falcon platform. The Australian Falcon is as big as your old Police Cruisers. Suspension and chassis dynamics very different again. We had “your Falcon” in the 1960’s too. Last Australian Falcon only shares the name.

Am i the only one mourning the loss of the 6 cylinder? I Love inline 6’s and ford had built some of the best. This is the last of a long line of inline 6’s. Descended from the 170 and 200 6 of the 60’s.

Makes me wonder how great the 300/4.9 6 would have been if they did the same upgrades. Cross flow head, dohc. The works. I’d take that over a 3.7 duratec v6 that they put in trucks now.

But I would be looking at the current diesel ones or the regular I6. It is highly praised by the local press and I see plenty of them around. It doesn’t surprise me as these blokes know how to make a car drive nicely.

But you really have to see them side to side. Other than the style reminiscence, you wonder if they were made by the same company. And the Explorer, like the Taurus before, didn’t sell well here.

I think you’ll find that Greg Locock, occasional TTAC commenter and mainstay on Engineering Tips Forum and Autosport Technical, had a great deal to do with the design and development of the Territory’s suspension. That man knows suspension kinematics.

The GM Atlas six was by all accounts a great motor saddled with a mediocre vehicle to pull around. I thought there were issues with inline sixes and emissions due to thermal efficiency…or that was what BMW said. Seems like it would be cheaper to develop an inline engine due to the need for only one head, etc…but I guess packaging constraints limit their usefulness.

Was the Atlas 6 ever offered in the fullsize trucks? I know the colorado/canyon came with 5 and 5 cylinders respectively.

Having said all that, give me that Taurus concept from back in the day with the transverse straight 8!

Most American I6 engines had three port cylinder heads for economy of manufacture , this meant fairly un equal fuel distribution unless you ran three carbys ($ !) or injection ~ Jeep’s 1960’s tech I6 uses fuel injection and they even make a kit to upgrade your old carby model to F.I. , a wonderful thing indeed .

InLine engine tend to be very smooth , much moreso than V configuration engines but they also take up a lot of room .

GM’s wonderous thinwall 1945/23/250 I6 engine had terrific power to weight but , the thinwall construction meant the are *very* susceptible to dirty oil , an American favorite .

The Ford 300 I6 (and it’s variants) is very robust , there used to be 12 port heads for the 200 C.I.D. ones , I’m told they were for racing boats , I’ve seen a few and think they’d be fun to hot up .

Where do I start. That statement is true. The rest of your post falls into true fantasy.
“this SUV is too big, 4,400lb+ and too hard to park in urban settings ”
Really? it is driven mainly by women.
‘Not a good 7 seater” the Territory has some of the best ergonomics for a SUV/CUV around that is why it has outsold similar Japanese SUV’s/CUV’s
“and abysmal build quality with RUST (yeah unbelievable in a clime that doesnt snow)” That is true fantasy no it does not rust out, build quality is not as good as the Asians granted. Yes it does snow in Australia.
“hopeless dealers and they tie GM for worst dealer experience pre and post sales” Absolute garbage. I guess you have not gone to some VW, Citroen, Fiat dealers really?

‘ie. people want toy (fwd) CUVs just like the rest of the world” THEY DO NOT” AWD Or RWD defintely NOT a FWD CUV!!!!!!
“in American, Ford has a general popular and almost ‘cool’ vibe”
This ugly little thing?
http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/06/2009-pontiac-vibe-gt-02.jpg